Excuse my skepticism

A Washington Post poll is cited as evidence that ‘most’ voters want a halt to immigration, and the part that is being heavily touted by many sources, especially ‘conservative’ sources is that Hispanics are the most opposed to continued immigration.

First of all, the source being the Washington Post makes me dubious of the accuracy and of the analysis of the information. The WaPo, in my book, is just as partisan as the NYT.

Also, the controlled media has for years now been telling us periodically that Latin American immigrants are heading back to their home countries in droves. Is there any actual evidence that this was ever true? If so, why does it appear that their numbers are increasing rather than decreasing?

Another aspect of this is that the Republican mainstream, that is, the party apparatchiks and the GOP loyalists, who are generally very Politically Correct and devotees of the ‘Big Tent’ inclusive-and-diverse doctrine, want so very, very much to believe that the GOP can win over those who are (as they put it) ‘kept on the Democrat plantation‘. For some reason these liberal GOP members like the slave allusions; they invented the ‘Dems are the Real Racists’ mantra and they seem to have got a lot of ‘conservatives’ to adopt their rhetoric — why, or how, is a mystery to me. They just can’t grasp that it is not a winning strategy to adopt the arguments and tropes of the hard-core left, with their constant name-calling and witch-hunting.

And suppose the oppressed who escape the Democrat Plantation, as they call it, do join the ”right” or at least the GOP. The plantation refugees, as we’ll call them, will just become a client group, who will be ‘special’ because they will be held up as examples of how we just need to ‘reach out’ so that people can feel ‘welcome’ and join our side. But at one time that kind of thing was called ‘pandering’, an attempt to attract more warm bodies who will likely need coddling or quid pro quo to really be ‘with us’ . And suppose their presence changes the very nature of the party membership? I always said this kind of outreach and catering would pull the ‘right’ ever more leftward, and looking back to what the right used to be, especially the old-time paleo-cons, vs. today’s squishy, PC ‘conservatives’ who have embraced all kinds of once-lefty positions — I think there is a need for some to believe the supposed ‘good news’ that we can win over people whose own interests run counter to our own.

One more caveat about the poll: notice the question is about a very temporary pause on immigration, not a permanent halt by any means. If uncontrolled immigration, as it now exists, should continue, is by nature a threat (as the article mentions) then why continue it at all? We see the results all too clearly after decades of neglect and lassitude on the part of the citizenry and our derelict politicos.

Losing the will to action

It’s interesting that just about the time I wrote a post here commending what I saw as Canadian outspokenness about their situation, there was a thread posted at the Council for European Canadians, which took the opposite position. The counter-opinion, which just happened to appear at around the same time as my own post, came from a Hungarian-born Canadian, who had apparently come to Canada after the Hungarian revolution of the late 50s.

The thread became a little contentious as some people, especially those who had immigrated to Canada decades ago, perceived that Canadians has become, in their view, more passive or fatalistic about being demographically displaced, or replaced, to use the Trudeau verbiage.

So from another point of view, Canadians, rather than becoming emboldened to speak out against their dispossession, were becoming more passive.

It is probably true that, not having the historical perspective of these past refugees to Canada, that is, those who came as legitimate refugees from a Communist country, my context was lacking.

It’s probably also true, sad to say, that all the Western countries, all those who are being subjected to demographic replacement or displacement have become fatalistic about the chances of reversing the situation. How is anything to change when, behind all this drama, you have the U.N. engineering this whole scenario, knowingly, and you have all these unseen, unidentified movers and shakers, people who have deep pockets and huge influence, and yet who are mostly unknown by name or by face to most people. Yes, we do know who some of them are; but the politicians involved, those who are ”elected” to ”represent” us, are errand boys and front men, as seems obvious. To whom can we appeal? No one, because this has been decided over our heads, as I’ve said for some years now. We are not given any say in this. We’ve been written into the script as the villains and the ‘out’ group, and thus deserve no say.

Oh, but am I ”conspiracy” theorizing? Everything the left and their unthinking followers dislike or object to discussing is deemed a ”conspiracy theory” and thus a product of paranoia. Implicit (or in some cases explicit) is the risible idea that conspiracies don’t happen. Thus anyone who believes in so obviously false an idea is crazy, imagining things, living in a fevered dream, probably in need of ‘re-education’ or ‘psychiatric help.’ They’ve really got this sewed up so that there’s no way to even discuss this with the True Believers. Or are they ‘true believers’ or just fast-talking, slick liars? They are not honest, and they don’t argue in good faith, ever, on any subject.

I always said that I was at heart an optimist, yet how is it possible to maintain a shred of optimism when we are up against people who are so devious and so absolutely closed-minded? Believe it or not I still don’t believe in giving up. I said that should I ever become a cynical pessimist and doomsayer I would give up blogging because there could be no point.

It often does seem, most days, as if I have nothing positive to contribute and if I had, it would go unheeded as I seem to be out of step with the majority on ‘our side’, as pessimism seems to have won the day, hands down.

Yet there is a God in heaven and He will have the last word. If I did not believe that (which I do, firmly) there would be no point. So though I have to contend with illness and discouragement I am not of a mind to give up and conceded that the battle is lost.

Say not the struggle nought availeth.” We can’t see what’s going on behind the scenes. There are ‘principalities and powers’, and yet even they are not as powerful as they — and some of us — may think. They merely try to project a powerful image but we must not be fooled by appearances, and be ‘psyched’ into giving up. It’s hard to tell people to take heart when all seems (almost) lost. I think we are letting ourselves be spiritually defeated, and ‘demoralized’ in the true sense of the term by these relentless forces. But we have to stand for something, not merely against something.

Dixie defamed again

The governor of what was once the state of Virginia, a state founded by my own ancestors (and yours, probably, if you are an original Southron), has now ended the holiday which honored Generals Lee and Jackson.

This, according to the governor, makes his People’s Republic of Virginia “a more representative and inclusive Commonwealth”. Representative and inclusive of what, or whom? Certainly not the oldest inhabitants of the Old Dominion. And by what rights can it now be called ”The Old Dominion”? You can read the history of that nickname here, but clearly it has to do with the origins of the state of Virginia, its founders, and its population, its history and heritage, in short.

The people who ‘elected’ the present governor of the current ‘state of Virginia’ constitute a group of people very unlike those who have populated Virginia since the English colonists first arrived, some 400+ years ago. This is not by happenstance; it’s by design. It’s an agenda, like Trudeau’s Grand Remplacement. The great ‘god’ diversity must be served.

Looking at a website which is supposed to be a biographical site for Northam, the only “memorable quote” attributed to him is the following, which I could have guessed at without knowing anything more about him than I do:

We live in a very diverse society — it is getting more diverse every day. It is that diverse society that makes this country great.”

quoted here

Now, if that’s not an original quote or thought. Imagine.

We’re additionally told that he was voted ‘most likely to succeed’ in high school or college or somewhere. Again, how predictable. But likely to succeed at what, exactly? Being the first to suggest legalizing post-natal infanticide? To succeed at pushing for demographic change in your own state, so that the original founding-stock are pushed out, or outnumbered at the polls? Or to make a run at abolishing the historical memories of Virginia’s greatest men? His ‘success’ is at the expense of history, heritage, tradition, memory. A country and a folk cannot thrive without those things.

Northam’s changeling Virginia (how long until the original name has to go?) is made up of a congeries of vastly disparate peoples who have little to nothing in common, except for an envy and covetousness that motivates the purposeful demographic changes which have transmuted Virginia to another mini-Babel. This kind of cobbled-together ‘state’ cannot thrive.

For those diversity-bots who go around parroting ‘diversity makes us strong’ or ‘diversity is our strength’ — prove it. Just saying it does not make it true. Just repeating nonsense does not make it sensible, much less factual. Yet we let every two-bit charlatan who gets behind a microphone or in front of a camera get away with uttering this tiresome drivel. Why, in heaven’s name, do we let them go unchallenged or unquestioned?

It’s a tragedy for us that we no longer seem to produce leaders of any calibre to challenge the demagogues and fakes. Where are our men of the talent of Thomas Jefferson, or any General Lee, or Rev. Dabney or any of the great orators or thinkers of our past? None of today’s leaders can hold a candle to any of them.

Still, it goes on: our country is being subjected to a ‘great replacement’, as are all of the countries of former Christendom. And to our shame, it’s people who are nominally of our own folk who are facilitating this compulsory transformation.

Worst, the ‘state of Virginia’ was trying to pass laws forbidding criticism of elected officials. How shameful and how very — shall I say it? — un-American. Yes, it is against the very principles laid down by our forefathers who created this country, but then few people seem to know those principles, much less to care to preserve them.

Theoretically my opinions would make me ‘guilty’ of refusing to bow down to the self-declared godlets who sit in legislatures or inhabit some public office. And that in itself is wrong. If such becomes law then America will well and truly be done.

The importance of word choice

I was just about to write a piece on the usage and misuse of the word ‘genocide‘, when I came across Thomas Dalton’s very helpful piece on that very subject, on TOO.

Dalton, in a very apropos essay, addresses how the word is very vaguely and broadly defined, and he delineates the origins of the word, as well as the current definitions as laid down by the likes of the U.N.

I recommend the Dalton piece, but I will add my own thoughts as to the questionable utility of a word whose meaning is so elastic that it can include both ‘lethal’ and ‘non-lethal’ meanings and outcomes. For example, any attempt or ‘conspiracy’ to eliminate, or even damage or harm another group is ‘genocide’, per the existing and widely accepted definitions.

However, consult a dicitionary and you will see that the suffix “-cide” as in ‘suicide‘ or ‘homicide’, etc., describe killer, or act of killing. Hence words like ‘regicide’, ‘pesticide’, parricide, and on and on. So it seems we are wresting the meaning by applying it to other situations in which there is no death implied.

There is no half-measure with death; no-one can be sort of killed or somewhat dead. It’s one or the other.

I’ve asked rhetorically in the past: how can there have been ‘genocide’ against American Indians when there are still many living Amerindians, across North, South, and Central America? The rabid left, of course, will say that there were tens of millions of American Indians and that they were ‘all but wiped out’, and would otherwise have represented hundreds of millions. That, however, is just conjecture or plain sophistry. There was never any official census to count the number of Amerindians during the time of the early colonies. How could there have been? And it’s fact that the tribes, being mostly hunter-gatherers, could not have been sustained by that lifestyle had they numbered in hundreds of millions; hunter-gatherers require lots of land and open space to pursue their hunting-gathering way of life.

Amerindians often succumbed to diseases for which Europeans had developed some degree of immunity. This was not intentional ‘genocide’ by Whites, and what about the current situation in which many new arrivals are carrying diseases which are new to North America, and for which we may have no immunity? It’s a fact, but does the left accuse anyone of intentional harm there? Not likely.

In short, it’s fallacious and dishonest to say that ‘genocide’ took place on this continent in the past. And yet, a lot of careless thinkers on the ‘right’ agree with the charges that our ancestors ‘genocided’ Amerindians. But the tribes are still alive and holding their own, so the charge is without validity. Why can’t people grasp that?

To address the question of whether it’s useful or wise, as Dalton questions, to apply the term ‘genocide’ to the replacement of our folk here or in Europe, I would argue, also, for a careful and correct use of language. For many people the word ‘genocide’ seems hyperbolic and hysterical in the current context. I’ve certainly used the term ‘existential threat’ to describe our situation, and I think that’s accurate, but in my opinion it’s about as useful to use the term ‘genocide’ at this point as it is to call the left ‘the real racists’ (the old DR3), in other words, not useful at all. It just rolls of the backs of the targets.

In any case, even if one supposes there’s some utility in throwing these words around in hopes of scoring a bullseye somewhere, there’s this question: considering the history of the word ‘genocide’, its origins and its current definitions (as defined by the United Nations et al), do we really wish to adopt their definitions and their ways of thinking? Since when?

The right can and should do better than to adopt slippery and sophistical rhetoric just because our foes do that so freely.

And far too many on the right, not just the ‘respectable cons’ or cuckservatives have fallen prey to the endless guilt that the left tends to heap on our folk. There is too much ready adoption of undeserved guilt feelings, and the groveling desire to point the finger elsewhere and try to deflect the blame. If we stand on the truth — not easy in this Age of the Lie, we will be much stronger.